Ayn Rand - GOP Thinker.

[_The CCC]

I'll leave all such judgements up to God. For me my religion helps explain my actions, and my actions help demonstrate my religion.

[_Maksutov]

I value outliers like Rand. Just like I valued Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They were important voices. But I wouldn't trust them with the keys to the car.

[_subgenius]

sub derails but...

it is more accurate to raise the issue for how an atheist has no foundation for the existence of a "morality" other than from a self-centered or selfish foundation.

no more than it is for a theist to have foundation for morality outside a self-centered selfish foundation. There is precisely only one grounding for morals out of several options that an atheist can't have but a theist can: if what is "good" is good because God says it's good.

The typical impulse for believers such as sub confuses "foundation" with "motivation". EA just explained why, and how in a bizarre twist some christians own selfishness as their god is uniquely positioned to reward with candy forever.

assuming your argument as valid still provides no justification for selfishness as being good or bad - and - still leaves the criticism of atheism for being unfounded....the "i know you are but what am i" rebuttal hardly elevates atheism to being reasonable.

Thus we are still left wondering how the OP can justify a claim of "wrong" or how the poster can justify a claim of "vice".

[_Chap]

People have been saying that you are a follower of that 1st-century rabbi who gave people the commandment to 'love one another' (which seems to rule out being selfish). Aren't you?

irrelevant issue at the moment - but - it is arguable for how "love one another" relates to a concept of selfishness, and yet another argument to contend that selfishness is inherently a vice or a virtue.

Excuse me, but I have the distinct impression, recalled from the days when I believed that the rabbi in question spoke with the voice of the creator of the cosmos, and the saviour of humankind, that nothing he said was under any circumstances 'irrelevant', and that one's following of him was not something that it was appropriate to leave out of any discussion of this kind. He was, I recall, a bit insistent on that point.

And, forgive me, but the bit of your post that I have underlined does not seem to finish in a way that makes very good sense.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think "moral motivation" is the issue raised against atheists - it is more accurate to raise the issue for how an atheist has no foundation for the existence of a "morality" other than from a self-centered or selfish foundation. Ergo their morality is necessarily subjective and can eventually only be justified by "might". Thus accountability can essentially be dismissed and disputes are resolved by arbitrary and inherently unfair methods.

You cannot presume to speak for all arguments against atheism. Yes, it is the case that people make the argument that atheists lack moral motivation because lack of eternal consequences can't align their selfish motivations with their intuitive sense of what is right. The problem is the notion that morality cannot exist apart from God is a very poor argument that relies on ignorance of moral philosophy. What comes of that is (some) religious people talk themselves into different positions in an attempt to justify it. One of those commits them, inadvertently, to the position of ethical egoism. This is due to confusing moral motivation with metaethical grounding.

You brought up a separate kind of argument that also gets get trotted out. Separate is the operative word here. Apart from simply being wrong, it's odd here to argue that ethical egoism could be a correct foundation for morality. If it is, then there's by definition nothing wrong with with an atheist adopting it and therefore it is above criticism. You can't morally criticize a morally correct foundation for morality. If it isn't, then the argument is that there is no foundation to morality for atheism period. Either way, saying atheists have to be ethical egoists doesn't function as a cogent criticism. What you'd have to do is reform this into thinking that atheism naturally leads atheists to incorrectly believe in ethical egoism. Problem there is that's objectively false. Very few atheists are like Ayn Rand and not-believing in God doesn't logically entail ethical egoism.

[_EAllusion]

Hers was a world of a few Uber-Capitalists makers and a vast majority of useless takers. That desired to die.

Ayn Rand was not consistent in her own actions. She claimed to be independent of morality and against others receiving governmental benefits they had not directly paid for. She smoked like a chimney. But when told she could not afford the medical care based on her own work. She applied for, and got, the money from her husband's Social Security Insurance account.

I don't think it is hypocritical neccessarily to receive government benefits when you oppose the existence of those benefits, but that's neither her nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with my point. My point is that the linked article offers some inapt criticisms of Rand because it misreads her book to say things it isn't saying. This happens because it misunderstands Rand's use of metaphor or her bad writing for the positions she's actually articulating. Again, I'm not a fan of Rand, so my interest here isn't in defending Objectivism. I'm just not a fan of bad criticisms.

To pick a trivial example, Rand absolutely is not saying that is Ok to kill people who can't make up their minds. It's just Rand's way of arguing that the capacity for rational choice is what makes humans moral agents who are different from animals. Therefore, people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves in making choices and abrogate their choices to authorities are behaving immorally / like animals. She combines this with the cliches of a spy thriller. It's dubious writing, but she is absolutely not endorsing killing the indecisive. That's a sloppy misreading of her at best and a deliberate misleading at worst.

Rand sucks, but it's important to get the reasons why right.

[_Gadianton]

Sub derails within a derail. If atheism can't say selfishness is right or wrong, since Ayn rand was an atheist, she can't say selfishness is good and the GOP isn't morally justified to follow her. A weird point for you to make but whatev.

[_subgenius]

irrelevant issue at the moment - but - it is arguable for how "love one another" relates to a concept of selfishness, and yet another argument to contend that selfishness is inherently a vice or a virtue.

Excuse me, but I have the distinct impression, recalled from the days when I believed that the rabbi in question spoke with the voice of the creator of the cosmos, and the saviour of humankind, that nothing he said was under any circumstances 'irrelevant', and that one's following of him was not something that it was appropriate to leave out of any discussion of this kind. He was, I recall, a bit insistent on that point.

And, forgive me, but the bit of your post that I have underlined does not seem to finish in a way that makes very good sense.

Irrelevant in context here, but ok

Thus we are still left wondering how the OP can justify a claim of "wrong" or how the poster can justify a claim of "vice".

[_subgenius]

Hers was a world of a few Uber-Capitalists makers and a vast majority of useless takers. That desired to die.

Ayn Rand was not consistent in her own actions. She claimed to be independent of morality and against others receiving governmental benefits they had not directly paid for. She smoked like a chimney. But when told she could not afford the medical care based on her own work. She applied for, and got, the money from her husband's Social Security Insurance account.

I don't think it is hypocritical neccessarily to receive government benefits when you oppose the existence of those benefits, but that's neither her nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with my point. My point is that the linked article offers some inapt criticisms of Rand because it misreads her book to say things it isn't saying. This happens because it misunderstands Rand's use of metaphor or her bad writing for the positions she's actually articulating. Again, I'm not a fan of Rand, so my interest here isn't in defending Objectivism. I'm just not a fan of bad criticisms.

To pick a trivial example, Rand absolutely is not saying that is Ok to kill people who can't make up their minds. It's just Rand's way of arguing that the capacity for rational choice is what makes humans moral agents who are different from animals. Therefore, people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves in making choices and abrogate their choices to authorities are behaving immorally / like animals. She combines this with the cliches of a spy thriller. It's dubious writing, but she is absolutely not endorsing killing the indecisive. That's a sloppy misreading of her at best and a deliberate misleading at worst.

Rand sucks, but it's important to get the reasons why right.

Thus we are still left wondering how the OP can justify a claim of "wrong" or how the poster can justify a claim of "vice".

[_moksha]

Because selfishness is a vice rather than a virtue.

if we ignore the obvious redundancy in your response (eg a vice is "wrong" by the actual definition) - one must ask, how is selfishness being qualified, by you, as a "vice" ?

I base this on greed being antithetical to the Christian value system on which most of our Western Civilization ethics are based.